I like Pages as well, although in good Mac fashion, what it sets out to do, it does really really well, but unlike Office you seem pretty restricted to the limitations of the software. Within those limitations, Pages is pretty fun. It makes adding graphics to Word painful by comparison.
I haven’t tried iWeb /iMac but it seems like an antiquated software concept out of the days of AOL.
[edit] er,… that’s .Mac i think.
.Mac is horribly slow, and the fact some of iWeb’s features require .Mac made me dump it for Wordpress.
I still have trouble with some of the more basic aspects of text handling in Pages, as much as I like the package overall. Things like increasing the indent level of a bulleted list to create a sublist… no idea how to do it, and not enough patience to look around for something I just expect to be obvious. Which could be my fault, but I’ve been trained to expect certain things by other software, so I blame Apple. Or everyone else for establishing the expectation. Or myself for being dense. Or something.
You know, something w/re to Leopard that i haven’t really thought about…
Basically, isn’t Leopard supposed to be a 64-bit OS? It doesn’t offer the possibility of downgrading to a 32-bit OS like Vista does.
Will many of the Mac friendly programs like Photoshop have 64-bit “Leopard ready” installs, or will everything remain as 32bit. I suppose since the iLife suite (which has all but become part of the standard OS) is Leopard-only it will be 64 bit as well.
Also, btw, if another Mac-head calls a motherboard the “Logic Board” i’m going to get spittin’ mad!
Gene, they’ve been a bit obscure about it. I know it expands the support for 64-bit apps, but I haven’t heard anyone state that it’s 64-bit through and through the way the MS versions are. I haven’t heard that it isn’t, either, but you’d think they’d be trumpeting it more if it was “64-bit clean” or whatever. I think they just extend 64-bit app support through more of the APIs than what is currently exposed. The caveat is that I could be completely clueless.
The OS X kernel has been 64-bit since Tiger (10.4). Executables can be compiled in either 32-bit or 64-bit mode, and OS X 64-bit hardware can run either.
Most of the application libraries (such as Cocoa and Carbon), however, do not have 64-bit versions. This means that if you want to write an app that works with a 64-bit address space, you need to split the 64-bit functions off into a separate executable than the user interface. Which is annoying (potentially very annoying), but not insurmountable.
Leopard (10.5) includes 64-bit versions of the application frameworks, so 64-bit apps can do anything 32-bit apps can.
One thing that would be rather funny, though, is if i could run 64-bit Vista apps in Leopard 64-bit w/ Parallels :).
Still, this is something that seems like Apple could have something of a lead on if they choose, or are capable, of leaning on devs to make 64 bit apps. Right now it doesn’t look like Vista is going to usher 64-bit into the consumer world, and it probably won’t be until the next new Win OS, five years from now, that that will happen.
Why would Apple want to “lean on” developers to make 64-bit apps? If you don’t need the larger memory space, 64-bitness does nothing other than bloat your memory usage.